Microchurches

While microchurches share several of the same characteristics with missional communities there are a couple of differences. Like missional communities, microchurches see mission as the organizing principle of their existence. However, microchurches not only focus on particular neighborhoods and networks of relationships, but others will engage in specific problems in a city. These areas of missional engagement could include a variety of poverty issues, human trafficking, education, crime, homelessness, mental health, and other areas of brokenness where gospel restoration is needed.

For me, the language of microchurch also provides a broader umbrella to encompass a variety of church expressions. How and where microchurches gather and engage their missional contexts will be different. Some will meet in homes, as that approach often makes sense for reaching a neighborhood or a social network. But others will meet in coffee shops, cafes, pubs, community centers, apartment complexes, and other informal public places. There will even be some microchurches that operate around business ventures or non-profits created for the sake of the city.

All microchurches will not (and should not) look alike. Mission is the mother of adaptive ecclesiology. This simply means that if we begin with God’s mission (missiology) there ought to be lots of wild and wonderful expressions of church (ecclesiology). Thinking outside the conventional paradigm for how mission, community, and worship intersect in smaller gatherings is essential. There is no one way.

Perhaps the greatest distinction between a missional community and a microchurch is that microchurches are seen as the church in its smallest, most nimble, and potent expression. Most (not all) missional communities are closely “tethered” to the larger church. Missional communities are therefore seen by many as an outreach expression of the mother church. Microchurches, on the other hand, give special emphasis to empowering people to use their gifts and resources to engage in God’s redemptive mission. They provide an opportunity for indigenous leaders to create and contextualize fresh expressions of the church. They give both the license to lead, but they also give leaders creative control over what they lead. This does not negate the benefits of networking microchurches together for the sake of training, coaching, accountability, and movement, however, those resources exist to support the microchurches not for the microchurches to support the network.

For more on the topic of microchurches read Underground Church and Microchurches by Brian Sanders. Also watch the video interviews below with Lucas Pulley where he shares a bit of the story of the Tampa Underground and provides some excellent insights on both decentralization and the importance of communitas.